Libertarian Communism isn't about creating "libertarian communist" nations or countries, but the abolition of states as part of the process of creating a self-managed society. This isn't something to be held over the heads of people after the "withering away" of the state, but a real goal. Libertarian Communis, is another term for socialist anarchism. An "anti-capitalist state" is an oxymoron, as the modern state is both a prerequisite and necessity for the functioning of capitalism ( as can be seen currently ). Libertarian communists see state socialist regimes (such as Cuba, former USSR etc) as being forms of state capitalism, in which the fundamendal aspects of capitalism remain, with the state as universal employer. Wage labour, capital, money, property etc still exist, as does class struggle.
Seriously, its much better to ask questions at libcom.org, this group is just a spin-off from that site. Forums here: http://libcom.org/forums

...and the more it will depend on authoritarianism to deal with that. history shows that authoritarian states don't usually decrease authoritarianism on their own, and in the few cases that has happened, the opposition have always used their new freedom to take over. that's why i don't believe in revolution, i believe in reformism, and i believe that the only way to effectively beat capitalism is by using it's own main weapon: efficiency. take an average, liberal (in the european sense of the word), democratic western constitution, make a few slight adjustments to allow a legal status and financing system for worker-controlled enterprises and let them compete with traditional capitalist companies in a (fairly) free market. as long as a public financing system is guaranteed and efficient enough to get it's money back, the prospect of profit-sharing will draw the more motivated and diligent workers, leaving companies based on private capital to die out. that's how i see it, anyway.

if you establish a proclaimed anti-capitalist state, you will always have capitalist states denouncing, boycotting and sabotaging you, simply because they feel threatened. this is true for any anti-capitalist state, whether communist, libertarian socialist or whatever. a world-wide revolution sounds good, but revolutionaries world-wide can't even agree on the economic-political system that is be introduced, let alone get together to pull off a stunt like that. even if they could, at this time in history they would not have the support of the population, because people (especially those in economically powerful nations, which are the ones that count) are simply too compliant with what they know and too afraid of change. so they would have to use authoritarianism as a means to achieve their goals. once authoritarianism has established itself within a system, it is pretty much impossible to get it back out: the more authoritarian a system is, the more internal opposition it will have...

ok but then riddle me this... how could libertarian communism exist in a multi-national context where some nations are capitalist? No nation, especially in this day and age is self sufficient, so how would a libertarian communist country open its borders for trade while maintaining a closed egalitarian society? It's what many economists argued was the fall of the Soviet Union... of course if a Communist revolution actually reaches its theoretical goal: the destruction of worldwide capitalism and the abolition of the wage system... then the need for a State, as we define it in modern contexts, is no more. Then perhaps you'd have what you call Libertarian Communism? Although Anarcho Communism or Syndicalism I think are better names for the red and black... @franko-gap: you're right, in the USA everything is politically backward (after all, the right wingers are "red" and labor day is in September!!) and I realize I misunderstood the use of "libertarian."

@ deepfriedbrain
Listen, Marxist! :-p
After the fall of Paris Commune in France were forbidden all kind of socialist, and especially anarchist organization. So the anarchist organizations started to name themselves in different ways - libertarian was one of them. So, in Europe and, for what I know, in most of the world, the word is more-less a synonym for anarchism. Libertarian (anarchist) communism is the ideal advocated by Kropotkin and many other revolutionaries till today.
In USA, however, everything is upside-down and a political ignorance prevails: Obama a leftist? Come on, people! You can't be SO stupid... So in USA libertarian means something different than in the rest of the world... :-/ Any politically educated human will notice the cretinism of your cited Reagan: liberalism (the classic one, not the new economic market-liberalism) is the opposed of conservativism; and libertarianism is beyond liberalism, it is more radical, it is revolutionary.

libertarian communists?? sounds like an oxy-moron to me... the only rights limited under traditional communism are the rights of property ownership and corporate growth... the idea that individuals whose intent it is to make a profit off the labor and exploitation of others be denied that "freedom" (which is really just the freedom to deny those who are less fortunate than them freedom). Things like sexuality, reproductive rights, self-medication, and artistic expression are all ideals protected by REAL marxists. In my experience libertarians are all about LESS economic restrictions, which means MORE freedom for corporations. Maybe libertarianism is something different in other countries, but here in the United States, the Libertarian Party is very closely related to the right-wing. So I can't help but see left-libertarianism as a contradiction of sorts. "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan